Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Commission upholds Board of Adjustment decision on 15‑foot wildlife wall at 515 Rhodes
Loading...
Summary
The county commission unanimously upheld a Board of Adjustment variance allowing a 15 ft‑8 in wall at 515 Rhodes Road after hearing an appeal. Appellants questioned the BOA’s findings and standing; the property owners and BOA record cited an exceptional historic cottonwood, an arboretum and wildlife habitat the wall is intended to protect.
The Washoe County Board of County Commissioners on April 28 voted unanimously to uphold a Board of Adjustment decision that granted a variance raising a wall‑height limit from 6 feet to 15 feet 8 inches at 515 Rhodes Road.
Appellants argued they lacked notice of the BOA hearing, questioned whether the BOA had properly found the statutory "special circumstances" needed for a variance, and urged the commission to deny the variance because the wall is tall and close to a property line. Appellant counsel said the wall effectively tripled the permitted height for fences in the zone and that the BOA record did not demonstrate the required findings.
Property owners’ counsel and BOA materials told a different story: the Colters said the site had been home to an exceptionally large Fremont cottonwood whose loss in weather events created an unusual conservation need. The owners described planting an arboretum and creating conditions that increased migratory‑bird use of the property; they said the preserved habitat and birdhouses mounted on the wall justify the variance as a wildlife‑preservation measure and that the BOA had carefully reviewed the findings.
County staff presented the BOA record and legal briefing notes. The commission discussed standing (whether the appellant had demonstrated a specific personal or property injury), code definitions (wall vs. fence vs. structure) and whether the BOA’s unanimous decision was supported by the record. Ultimately, the commission concluded the BOA’s findings were supported and denied the appeal; the BOA decision therefore stands.
The commissioners did not change the BOA conditions but noted the matter raises issues the county’s planning staff may want to review for future code refinements, such as clearer definitions or standards for atypical structures and when modification authority applies.
The appeal and the commission’s decision drew public comments on both sides: neighbors who support the wall’s wildlife purpose submitted letters into the record, and the appellant’s counsel emphasized potential precedent and the need for robust findings in future variance requests.
